hundreds of thousands of Peruvian citizens.46 In its ruling, the Court addressed both the merits of the case as well as the judicial authority to restore the enjoyment of rights at issue, holding that the obligation of the state is not limited to the mere existence of courts and tribunals, but must provide a “real possibility to file a remedy.”47 While it is important for remedies to be clearly set out in the legal framework, the application of these remedies must also be guaranteed: “winning the case is not the same as winning the remedy.”48 In the 2015 parliamentary elections in Turkey, the Rights and Liberties Party lodged a complaint alleging that several media outlets had incorrectly reported that the party had withdrawn from the election, and the party requested that the Supreme Board of Elections (SBE) remedy the matter by corrective announcement.49 The SBE informed OSCE observers that it would not adopt a decision on the complaint and had no means to remedy the matter.50 In another instance, a complaint lodged by the People’s Liberation Party concerning continued use of a campaign song by another party was left without consideration on the substance, on the grounds that the remedy requested by the complainant, to de-register the party, was not appropriate. OSCE observers noted that while remedies existed in the law, ultimately the SBE did not provide an effective remedy for contestants in practice.51 The principle that a remedy must be effective in practice (de facto) as well as in law (de jure) has been emphasized in other areas of law concerning the protection of rights, including those related to asylum. In 2010, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) conducted research in 11 Member States on approaches to asylum procedures.52 The final report from this research concluded that “[t]he notion of effectiveness implies that a person should be able to access the remedy in not only legal terms, but also in practice. The research indicated that, in practice, various and numerous [procedural] impediments face prospective appellants in some Member States…[and] a number of these impediments may combine to render the right of appeal ineffective in practice.53 As illustrated by this research, many procedural factors can render a remedy ineffective in practice, even if the remedy is provided for in the legal framework. Therefore, the notion of 46 Miyagawa v. Peru, Case 11.28, Rep. No. 119/99, Inter-Am. Comm. H.R. doc. 3 rev. ¶ 1262 (Oct. 6, 1999), http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/119-99.html. 47 The claim evoked the constitutionality of political rights and more specifically, the right to register as an independent candidate. Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, Case 12.535, Rep. No. 113/06, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R. ¶¶ 92,40 (2008). 48 Ubi Jus, supra note 33. OSCE, EARLY PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, 1 NOV. 2015: FINAL REPORT (2015), http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/turkey/219201. 50 Id. 51 ID. 52 Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and the United Kingdom. 53 John Barnes, The right to an effective remedy: The Scope of Article 39 of the Procedure Directives (2005/85/EC) and the effect of the proposals for amendment of the Directive (2009 COM 554/4), INT’L ASS’N OF REFUGEE JUDGES 2 (2010) https://www.iarlj.org/general/images/stories/lisbon_sep_2010/john_barnes__lisbonconferencepaperonart39pdversion3_jb.pdf. Potential impediments identified included inadequate information provided to applicants on how to appeal, and to which appeal body; extremely short time-limits within which to appeal; a requirement to lodge the appeal in person, which is impossible for some applicants to fulfill in practice; difficulties in accessing the case file in a timely manner; and limited physical access to the court or tribunal due to distance and lack of financial resources to travel. 49